The Problem Of Conciousness

It's been a while since I've had something new and interesting to say, here goes nothin'.

A lot of people like theories of universal oneness and unity. It's a central theme in many religions, Eastern ones especially. Through meditation and deep concentration, it is said that one can come to experience a place/dimension/etc where all is one, space and time have no meaning, internal and external are one in the same. It's all very elegant and peaceful sounding.

In sensory deprivation chambers, subjects also quickly lose track of space and time. The mind, when left to itself seems to refer to this timeless, spaceless state in the absence of stimuli.

Why is this? Does this validate universal 'oneness' theories?

It's far more likely that this 'realization' comes from the inherently limited viewpoint of consciousness. As a mental entity, consciousness itself is spaceless and timeless. It is the observation of the body and external reality that give us such concepts.

The concsiousness, as it views itself, has a pure sense of being. In its best estimation, it has always and will always exist because it has never known and cannot comprehend not existing.

So, when outside stimuli are gone (as in a state of meditation or sensory deprivation chamber) the consciousness has nothing to focus on but itself. What it experiences is a timeless, spaceless entity that the experiencer mistakenly interprets as the true nature of the universe.

Does that make any sense to anyone? I dunno. I'm tired. G'night.

was thinking of this awhile ago.

Quote:

---

The mind, when left to itself seems to refer to this timeless, spaceless state in the absence of stimuli.[/b]

---

i think a key phrase here is stimuli.

"stimuli" only really has meaning in the context of biology ("responding to stimuli" is one of the seven characteristics of all life)

though one could extend this to chemistry as well i suppose, depending on how loose their definition is, and say that various elements stimulate one another towards certain reactions.

in both these examples, there is be-ing.

be-ing= matter within the process of change.
----
the way i see it, if the universe operates according to fundamental laws, it possesses both "memory" and "intelligence" in some form.

just as life does.


what am i getting at with any of this? not really sure. but i thought the post justified a response, and someone might find the thoughts above to be interesting stimuli.
-----
all that possesses relation must exist as part of a whole.
----
there is a reason that mystics point towards silence...the absence of stimuli. it would seem there the One is complete and All That Is is limited. it can grow nor die (relate) no further, but only within its own "body".

and in experiencing "pure" limitation as a part, one shares in a fundamental quality of the universe it-self as a whole.
---------
any time consciousness relates to a stimuli, it integrates it in some form.

can the absence of all stimulation be THE stimuli?

*laughs*

words can never define the totality of mind, nor its limits.
-----

have you ever truly deprived yourself of all stimulation brady?
if so, could "you" remember it with your subjective mind?

blah blah blah, hehe.

Consciousness is an amazing thing to think about, but it can get VERY confusing simply because so many people use the word 'conscious' to mean anything from being aware of a self to simply being awake. I know this confused me a lot until I learnt a bit about it all in my philosophy lecture.

Basically the human mind can be divided into three basic forms of consciousness:

Sentience - the subjective experience of stimuli

Access to information - the ability to report on the context of cognitive processes

Self-Knowledge - awareness of the 'self'


There's more forms of consciousness, but these three are the most basic. An important feature of these three forms is that they interact with each other heavily - sentience requires not only stimuli, but self knowledge and access to information for it to be a subjective experience.

Sensory deprevation is an interesting example. I'm guessing that without stimuli, the human mind has to rely heavily on self-knowledge consciousness, ie. your ego, your internal narration etc. Perhaps this is why it seems like an 'insight' is gained in sensory deprevation, but I'm not sure because I don't know that much about it.

As far as the loss of time, I don't think it's perhaps that remarkable with the loss of stimuli. The human mind keeps track of time by estimating according to external factors. If you ask someone to perform a series of tasks in an hour, and someone to sit and stare at a wall for an hour, the person doing the tasks will subjectively think that the time was longer if asked to guess it. The more tasks performed, the longer the brain considers time to be. In sensory deprevation there'd be no external factors to allow the brain to calculate the passage of time.

I think meditation is pretty interesting, but a little different from sensory deprevation. Sensory deprevation stops sentient conscioussness, whereas I think that meditation stops self-knowledge consciousness. Meditation seems, from my experience, to be the process of concentrating on the body and ridding the mind of the 'ego' of thought etc. Meditation seems to be focusing on sentient consciousness, whereas sensory deprevation is focussing on self-awareness consciousness. I know that sometimes when I am able to meditate realyl deeply I forget who 'I' am for a while, which is an amazing feeling.

I agree with you bradybaker that people often might mistake these things for awareness of the universe and blah blah blah - all it is is simply looking inwards. Looking inwards is a strange experience for everyone because we spend most of our lives looking outwards at the world.

I think that perhaps the strangest problem of consciousness is the problem of experience - what 'makes' the subjective sensation that we get when we look at a certain colour or taste chocolate etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bradybaker

So, when outside stimuli are gone (as in a state of meditation or sensory deprivation chamber) the consciousness has nothing to focus on but itself. What it experiences is a timeless, spaceless entity that the experiencer mistakenly interprets as the true nature of the universe.
[/b]

---

Why do you say "mistakenly interprets"?

Does not the circumference of a circle depend on its center point?

Awesome topic Brady. And some nice feedback too.

I think your perspective on consciousness is all but mostly true. Or so it would seem to us.

One thing that I have pondered and take issue with is:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Brady")</div>

Quote:

---

So, when outside stimuli are gone (as in a state of meditation or sensory deprivation chamber) the consciousness has nothing to focus on but itself. What it experiences is a timeless, spaceless entity that the experience mistakenly interprets as the true nature of the universe.[/b]

---

Perhaps we are mistaking consciousness by labeling it with us.
When you say "itself." Are you proclaiming us?
I think perhaps that is one of the big misinterpretations of consciousness. Our ego. We can&#39;t think of it without context to ourselves. But in all actuality consciousness may just be one streaming line of consciousness, without the existence of past present or future, unless WE make it so. We see it in time references. Without our egoic process of making all things have a beginning and an end it would exist universally. At a liberated state of thought.
It is.
Is what?
That is a hard thing to get your mind around. IS. Without any exhausting philosophy of where how and

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Roller")</div>

Quote:

---

Basically the human mind can be divided into three basic forms of consciousness:
Sentience - the subjective experience of stimuli
Access to information - the ability to report on the context of cognitive processes
Self-Knowledge - awareness of the &#39;self&#39;[/b]

---

[color=#006600]Again, does not consciousness exist without us?
Awareness and our sentient nature attach these things to consciousness perspective. It is only our perspective that puts consciousness into motion in relation to our process of thought.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Howetzer")</div>

Quote:

---

Perhaps we are mistaking consciousness by labeling it with us.
When you say "itself." Are you proclaiming us?
I think perhaps that is one of the big misinterpretations of consciousness. Our ego. We can&#39;t think of it without context to ourselves. But in all actuality consciousness may just be one streaming line of consciousness, without the existence of past present or future, unless WE make it so. We see it in time references. Without our egoic process of making all things have a beginning and an end it would exist universally. At a liberated state of thought. [/b]

---

Hmm, how do you mean? Consciousness being seperate to the body, but because we can only be aware of our own consciousness through introspection, we immediately assume consciousness to be &#39;us&#39;?

It&#39;s quite a puzzle, for instance the statement, "I have a brain" or "I have a body."

By saying that I have a brain, am I referring to &#39;me&#39; as simply the conscious ego? Without a brain, there would not be any &#39;me&#39; to say that I have a brain, so perhaps the statement should be "I am a brain," but then where does that leave the body?

As far as consciousness being a phenonema seperate from the body (dualism), I&#39;m not convinced. I think that our consciousness directly stems from, and is part of the body/brain.

I don&#39;t think that consciouness exists without us, because without an ego or &#39;knowledge of self,&#39; the rest of consciousness lacks severely. If there is no &#39;me&#39; experiencing the feeling of a hot stove, then all there is is a network of nerves sending electrical pulses.

Sorry if I&#39;m sounding like a smart arse, my philosophy lecture at uni has been on mind, knowledge and god and I&#39;ve been yearning to bust out some jargon and ideas on here for a long time :wink: I hope I read what you were saying right; it&#39;s such a confusing topic, but that&#39;s what makes it fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roller

Sorry if I&#39;m sounding like a smart arse, my philosophy lecture at uni has been on mind, knowledge and god and I&#39;ve been yearning to bust out some jargon and ideas on here for a long time :wink: I hope I read what you were saying right; it&#39;s such a confusing topic, but that&#39;s what makes it fun.[/b]

---

I did not take it that way at all. I guess we are all just philosophers at this point. Such an intriguing topic can been taken into so many realms. and it is fun&#33; :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roller

Hmm, how do you mean? Consciousness being seperate to the body, but because we can only be aware of our own consciousness through introspection, we immediately assume consciousness to be &#39;us&#39;?
It&#39;s quite a puzzle, for instance the statement, "I have a brain" or "I have a body."[/b]

---

Definitely separate from the body. Our body is really what. Just a carrier for our mind. We could loose limbs and organs and that does not change consciousness - But it would change our perspective of consciousness. Meaning consciousness was there all along but only when it is put into context to something is when it is manipulated.
I think consciousness can and does exist without awareness. Oddly enough last night after posting in this post, I was lying in bed thinking about this thread. As I was listening to the cicadas (Katydids).. it began to rain. All the insects, crickets, cicadas and such were silent. Was that a conscious act? I don&#39;t believe it was. But they are conscious, no? I know living organism inherently have instinct. But that would still encompass a level of consciousness without awareness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roller

By saying that I have a brain, am I referring to &#39;me&#39; as simply the conscious ego? Without a brain, there would not be any &#39;me&#39; to say that I have a brain, so perhaps the statement should be "I am a brain," but then where does that leave the body?
As far as consciousness being a phenonema seperate from the body (dualism), I&#39;m not convinced. I think that our consciousness directly stems from, and is part of the body/brain.

I don&#39;t think that consciouness exists without us, because without an ego or &#39;knowledge of self,&#39; the rest of consciousness lacks severely. If there is no &#39;me&#39; experiencing the feeling of a hot stove, then all there is is a network of nerves sending electrical pulses.[/b]

---

What do you mean by lacks?
As I put in my first response. "Is"....Is what? We have no way of pin pointing where consciousness is located at any given point. So our natural response to this would be to label it as you, me, it or I.
Similar to death, we cannot percieve "it" without us in relation to our interaction with it.
The more I write the more questions arise. :P

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Howetzer")</div>

Quote:

---

Definitely separate from the body. Our body is really what. Just a carrier for our mind. We could loose limbs and organs and that does not change consciousness - But it would change our perspective of consciousness.[/b]

---

True, but entirely different when it comes to the brain. I used to think that the mind was a seperate entity because it certainly seems so, from introspection at least. The notion that the mind is seperate from the body is called duallism. Dualism certainly does seem to explain the mind, but there are a few problems with it.

Dualism: the theory that the mind is a seperate entity to the physical body.

- The close relationship between the brain and the mind. Have a beer; alcohol travels through the system and begins to interfere with the transfer of electrical signals in the brain. Sure, after one beer the effects aren&#39;t too noticable, but from about five beers onwards there is a noticable change in the body, and, more importantly, the mind. Motor skills become hampered, the ability for complex thinking and risk analysis is severely reduced, and many more. In this case a direct correlation between changing circumstances in the physical brain and the conscious mind can be seen.

A further example is brain damage. Our lecturer made the example of a railroad worker who had a metal spike driven clean through the front half of his head in an explosion and survived. At first it seemed like he was no different, until a few uncertainties began to appear. He was no longer able to hold down his job and drifted from one to the other, losing his family in the process. It became clear that the man had lost the ability to make long term plans, or even acknowledge anything further than the direct short-term future. The correlation between parts of the brain and different aspects of the mind suggests that the mind is directly tied to the body. Damage or changes to the brain = damage or changes to the mind.

- If the mind is a non-physical entity, then how does it interact with the body? Touching an object sends an electrical signal along the nerve fibre and up the spine and to the brain - a completely physical process. How, if the mind is non-physical, would it recieve this signal. How would it then send it?

There&#39;s a few more very powerful criticisms of the dualist theory, but I can&#39;t remember them off the top of my head. I used to think that the mind was seperate from the body, but now I&#39;ve got a much different theory which I&#39;ve been meaning to post but I haven&#39;t got around to. I guess I&#39;m still contemplating it a bit.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Howetzer")</div>

Quote:

---

All the insects, crickets, cicadas and such were silent. Was that a conscious act? I don&#39;t believe it was. But they are conscious, no? I know living organism inherently have instinct. But that would still encompass a level of consciousness without awareness.[/b]

---

A very good point. It depends on what kind of consciousness is referred to, though. Yes, it was an act of mind - they were responding to the stimuli of rain, which can be seen as the &#39;access to information&#39; part of consciousness. They were not &#39;self-aware&#39; of the act though (I think it&#39;s safe to say). They were not thinking in terms of an ego, "oh, I should stop chirping now" and I doubt they were aware of their decision though. Consciousness is dependent on intelligence. The higher up the order of intelligence in the animal kingdom you go, the more self-awareness you get. Cimpanzees, for example, are able to recognise themselves in the mirror.

Hmm... well basically my idea on consciousness is that it is a phenonemon that enables the brain and body to form a model of its environment and therefore interact with it in complex ways. I was going to explain it some more but I&#39;ve kinda run out of steam haha. I&#39;ll try and explain it some more later.

I do believe as you do that the mind itself is not separate from the body.
That seems obsurd actually to me. It is an organ just like any other, just more complex.

Quote:

---

Hmm... well basically my idea on consciousness is that it is a phenomenon that enables the brain and body to form a model of its environment and therefore interact with it in complex ways. I was going to explain it some more but I&#39;ve kinda run out of steam haha. I&#39;ll try and explain it some more later.[/b]

---

That is a good point. A mechanism of sorts to make mind and body in concert with each other
On a basic level all living organisms with a body would have this, no?
IS that just the mechanism of the brain and it&#39;s functioning or is consciousness an entirely different aspect of a being?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Howetzer")</div>

Quote:

---

That is a good point. A mechanism of sorts to make mind and body in concert with each other
On a basic level all living organisms with a body would have this, no?
IS that just the mechanism of the brain and it&#39;s functioning or is consciousness an entirely different aspect of a being?[/b]

---

Well yeah... the whole concept of &#39;me&#39; as a person with a name, a person with ideas and emotions etc, is simply a construct of my brain.

I&#39;m trying to think of the best way to explain this...

Basically, I see consciousness as being &#39;solved&#39; best through looking at evolution. Consciousness, really, is only a phenonemon that occurs as a result of a highly refined and functional brain. As I mentioned before, examining organisms in terms of intelligence, you can see a higher understanding of &#39;self&#39; the more developed and intelligent the species is. What does this concept of self achieve? Well it makes survival much easier.

If you look at three forms of consciousness, you can see how they are directly useful in terms of survival:

Sentience:
This one is especially useful for survival because it allows interaction with the environment. Like you said with the cicadas. The more intelligent an organism, the more developed and refined sentience becomes until it reaches a level where we can distinguish between things like different shades of the same colour etc.

Access to information:
The ability to access and use memory and past experience is very useful, especially for learning.

Self-awareness:
This is perhaps the most important of all when it comes to a &#39;model&#39;. The concept of a &#39;self&#39; allows an organism to interact with its environment in a much better way. In simple terms, by being aware of its own body it can navigate its way through the environment. In complex terms, being aware of one&#39;s own existence enables long-term decisions to be made. I am aware that I exist, which is why I will try and find a good career - not only for my own immediate survival, but so that I might have a good pension etc etc.

Consciousness, I think, is a &#39;model.&#39; The closest and quickest metaphor I can think of right now is to say that consciousness is like an operating system on a computer. There is nothing in the processor or in the memory of the computer that directly describes "Windows XP" or "OS X," but when everything is functioning as it should, the operating system springs into life. The operating system allows the computer to interact with other computers and devices, and allows the computer to perform specific tasks.

I mean this example doesn&#39;t describe everything, but it does make a bit of sense I think. We&#39;re all just lumps of meat, just like a computer is a heap of circuits etc. However, when the computer is given an operating system, it suddenly turns into something that is more than the sum of its parts. Consciousness allows us to become &#39;beings&#39; and &#39;subjects&#39; and to do things that mere lumps of meat can&#39;t usually do. It is a model that allows us to interact with the world in a highly complex way.

So, really, there isn&#39;t so much that is puzzling about consciousness, more like awe-inspiring.

Hope that kind of makes sense.

Brady,

This type of experience in a sensory deprivation chamber in no way "validates" metaphysical Unity (or actually, Non-Duality). As described in multiple traditional texts and commentaries (but probably most clearly stated in the Upanishads), Non-Duality is beyond all distinction, beyond all manifestation (formal and formless). From what you are describing, the mental faculty is still active in the deprivation chamber, so this cannot be called the same thing if there is still the sense of individual distinction. The closest this could come would be the subtle realm.

A lot of people are beggining to think Conciousness is a wave that is only detected when it interats with organic matter. much like how gravity is a wace that is only detected when it interats with mass.

This could mean that we are all one conciousness experiencing itself subjectively. life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roller

True, but entirely different when it comes to the brain. I used to think that the mind was a seperate entity because it certainly seems so, from introspection at least. The notion that the mind is seperate from the body is called duallism. Dualism certainly does seem to explain the mind, but there are a few problems with it.

Dualism: the theory that the mind is a seperate entity to the physical body.

- The close relationship between the brain and the mind. Have a beer; alcohol travels through the system and begins to interfere with the transfer of electrical signals in the brain. Sure, after one beer the effects aren&#39;t too noticable, but from about five beers onwards there is a noticable change in the body, and, more importantly, the mind. Motor skills become hampered, the ability for complex thinking and risk analysis is severely reduced, and many more. In this case a direct correlation between changing circumstances in the physical brain and the conscious mind can be seen.

A further example is brain damage. Our lecturer made the example of a railroad worker who had a metal spike driven clean through the front half of his head in an explosion and survived. At first it seemed like he was no different, until a few uncertainties began to appear. He was no longer able to hold down his job and drifted from one to the other, losing his family in the process. It became clear that the man had lost the ability to make long term plans, or even acknowledge anything further than the direct short-term future. The correlation between parts of the brain and different aspects of the mind suggests that the mind is directly tied to the body. Damage or changes to the brain = damage or changes to the mind.

- If the mind is a non-physical entity, then how does it interact with the body? Touching an object sends an electrical signal along the nerve fibre and up the spine and to the brain - a completely physical process. How, if the mind is non-physical, would it recieve this signal. How would it then send it?

There&#39;s a few more very powerful criticisms of the dualist theory, but I can&#39;t remember them off the top of my head. I used to think that the mind was seperate from the body, but now I&#39;ve got a much different theory which I&#39;ve been meaning to post but I haven&#39;t got around to. I guess I&#39;m still contemplating it a bit.
A very good point. It depends on what kind of consciousness is referred to, though. Yes, it was an act of mind - they were responding to the stimuli of rain, which can be seen as the &#39;access to information&#39; part of consciousness. They were not &#39;self-aware&#39; of the act though (I think it&#39;s safe to say). They were not thinking in terms of an ego, "oh, I should stop chirping now" and I doubt they were aware of their decision though. Consciousness is dependent on intelligence. The higher up the order of intelligence in the animal kingdom you go, the more self-awareness you get. Cimpanzees, for example, are able to recognise themselves in the mirror.

Hmm... well basically my idea on consciousness is that it is a phenonemon that enables the brain and body to form a model of its environment and therefore interact with it in complex ways. I was going to explain it some more but I&#39;ve kinda run out of steam haha. I&#39;ll try and explain it some more later.
[/b]

---

Actually, when I get trashed, there still is a conscience - there still are ethics, but I just choose to completely ignore them.

I was almost alcohol poisoned (if I didn&#39;t puke over a gallon of w/e I ate and drank that night I would have probably landed in the hospital). But that whole night, I was doing stupid crap, and the whole time... there was always this voice for a split second "you shouldn&#39;t do this, you are drunk right now", and then me going "nah, I don&#39;t care it&#39;s fun". And I also have brief memories of my head being a garbage can with the voice in the back of my head going "never again... never again...", and it was right. I still get drunk once in a while, but I keep it at a controllable level now.

And the guy with spike going through his head - it&#39;s also possible that his mind just simply lost the ability to use that part of his brain. You can argue that "he" is still there, just as "I", my super-ego was "still there" the night I almost went to far.